You seem rather intent that we read them through that filter and put Barbour googles on.

Please let me know once you yourself have conducted a comprehensive review of all extant literature on the topic at hand, in the original languages, and consulted all the relevant secondary texts from both Orthodox theologians and secular historians, that I might defer to your superior erudition in disputing the facts of history.

As for the rest, well... the floor remains open to those wishing to make sensible and thoughtful contributions to the discussion, though somehow I doubt they will get much of a chance...

You seem rather intent that we read them through that filter and put Barbour googles on.

Please let me know once you yourself have conducted a comprehensive review of all extant literature on the topic at hand, in the original languages, and consulted all the relevant secondary texts from both Orthodox theologians and secular historians, that I might defer to your superior erudition in disputing the facts of history.

LOL. Don't hold your breath.

I don't need to conduct my own experiments, nor read and study all the studies, to find out snorting crack cocaine is bad for me. You

I notice that this has not been discussed at all on this forum so far, so I thought I would "put it out there" so to speak....-- Personally, I agree with Barbour that Scholastic and Aristotelian thought are not at all inimical to Orthodox piety and tradition....Going by what I have read on this forum and elsewhere, however, I know that I am in the minority among Orthodox.

Discuss.

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

So you are aware of "the anti-Scholastic and anti-Aristotelian animus one often sees in modern Eastern Orthodox," and conclude it is only among "modern" Orthodox. Say for sake of argument that your master Barbour is correct "this was not always the case," and "some of the most influential Byzantine Orthodox saints from at least the 9th century onwards" agree with you. Well, we are not in the 9th century, nor the centuries "onwards" to the fifteenth. What happened to create the anti-scholatic and anti-Aristolian animus among "modern" Eastern Orthodox? Can't be any lack of Aristotle or Scholastics: if it were, why the "lament [of] the influence of Latin scholasticism on some of the standard Orthodox theological manuals and catechisms in use until recently in Greece and in Slavic countries"? And its not Plato, which it seems you want as a boodgeyman to scare us into the arms of Aristotle.

The Georgian who wouldn't give more than a fig for Aristotle didn't say he would accept Plato. He replied:"St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian."

Despite what is being portrayed, the waning centuries of Rome were not its height in theology. Why try to squeeze the two millenia of the Church into those few centuries, particularly the 15th? Except that that was the height of the school which has deformed the Vatican's theology, and which it has embraced more firmly now than it did even in the 15th century?

The Western Captivity of the Church has ended. We're not being lured back into the cage.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Scholasticism, putting philosophy on par with revelation, is totally inimical to Orthodox Christianity. The havock it has wrought in the West demonstrates that.

Yup. And the last thing we want to do with you, Isa, is rake havock!!

M.

As you can see Mr. Fripod...

if he can seea spade, yes.

Just weeding the tares that don't belong. The weeds of Scholasticism overran the Lord's vineyard, and we just got rid of that Kudzu. We need to burn it, not store it in the barns of the Catholic Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't need to conduct my own experiments, nor read and study all the studies, to find out snorting crack cocaine is bad for me. You

Surely you know that that line of reasoning is simply fallacious. There is simply no way you cannot know that.

After all, it is no good comparing the use of demonstrative reasoning in theology to cocaine use, when whether or not the two are any sense even remotely comparable is precisely what is at issue. I have argued they are not. You have yet to provide a coherent response.

Quote

What happened to create the anti-scholatic and anti-Aristolian animus among "modern" Eastern Orthodox? Can't be any lack of Aristotle or Scholastics: if it were, why the "lament [of] the influence of Latin scholasticism on some of the standard Orthodox theological manuals and catechisms in use until recently in Greece and in Slavic countries"? And its not Plato, which it seems you want as a boodgeyman to scare us into the arms of Aristotle.

You are right, it isn't Plato. But my friend, if you would care to actually read the material I have supplied, I think you will find that it is a little thing called Romantic Nationalism.

"It hardly needs mentioning how far these Greeks [i.e. the Byzantine Aristotelians] in reality were from their present day image. Authors like Meyendorff and Tsirpanlis, for example, seem to be unaware of these easily ascertainable facts of history. Yet this phenomenon among modern Orthodox writers is so general as to be a rule. A prime example of the use of the anti-scholastic assumptions is found in C. Cavarnos, “Aristotle’s Legacy in the Hellenic East,”… where the author insists on the pre-eminence of Platonism in the Orthodox tradition precisely because of the Palamite and anti-Western strains in it; this would have come as quite a surprise to Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, or Gennadios who also would not have appreciated the strange, for a true Byzantine at least, expression “Hellenistic Christian.” It seems at times that much of the scholarship of Greeks today is based more on a Romantic ideal of a Greek nation than the more universal, not to say Catholic, ideal of a Christian oikumene." (p. 102n)

"why is it that the difference between the Latin scholastic tradition and the Eastern Orthodox tradition are seen today to be so irreducible, and precisely on account of their Latin-ness or Eastern-ness? Why is it that contemporary Orthodox thinkers as diverse as Meyendorff and Cavarnos insist that the best of Orthodox tradition is inherently unscholastic and Platonic? I will offer only one of the several possible reasons, but the one which is the most dangerous to the faith and practice of Catholics and Orthodox alike, and it is nothing less than the adoption of an anti-scholasticism inspired not by Platonism, but by modern ideologies, which imprison the faith in their categories."

Despite what is being portrayed, the waning centuries of Rome were not its height in theology. Why try to squeeze the two millenia of the Church into those few centuries, particularly the 15th? Except that that was the height of the school which has deformed the Vatican's theology, and which it has embraced more firmly now than it did even in the 15th century?

I have never suggested otherwise, in fact, my argument was precisely that this period constituted as catastrophic fall away from the classical scholasticism shared by both East and West.

Quote

The Western Captivity of the Church has ended. We're not being lured back into the cage.

In all honesty, I can't see that there ever was a "Western Captivity." The history just doesn't show it - not by a long shot. If anything, the "emergence" of the Orthodox Church from "Western Captivity" in the late 18th Century more likely constituted its enslavement to a "Romantic Statist Captivity."

Well, there is no need to go on "just" this quote alone, I did link to an article written by him previously, and in the original post to his doctoral thesis on this subject, you are more than welcome to examine his views for yourself. There is no need to take my word for it. As for Aquinas being a Neoplatonist, we know that in Orthodox Byzantium:"Plato and Platonism as such were always viewed with deep suspicion ... Platonism itself as well as the pursuit of philosophical speculation for its own sake was forever identified with the paganism of the Hellenes, not with the Orthodox Christianity of the Romans ... whenever ... a preference for Plato over Aristotle was explicitly expressed, a great alarm was raised by Orthodox authority, and the Christianity of such philosophers was straightaway under suspicion." (pp. 14-16)

-- if Aquinas was acceptable to the Byzantines, evidently he can't have been all that Platonic.

This is strange reasoning indeed. First, you are confusing Platonism and Neo-Platonism. Please re-read the entirety of Barbour's explanation on pp 14-16, which draws a distinction between the two. Second, I must ask: Are you familiar with the history of late antique and medieval philosophy in general? Please read some surveys, e.g. The Oxford Handbook to Aquinas, to familiarize yourself with the sort of "Aristotle" the Schoolmen in general, and Aquinas in particular, had access to. Both wittingly and unwittingly, Aquinas represents the Neo-Platonic tradition on many important points, especially in his fights against various interlocutors at the University of Paris. This is nothing unique to Aquinas, by the way. It is simply the reality of philosophy at the time, especially Christian philosophy, influenced as it was in Aquinas' thought by Augustine, Boethius, Simplicius, et al.

Well, the particular quote you are referring to is just a "sound bite," really, intended to convey the sense that both "liberal" and "traditionalist" Orthodox writers tend to agree on this point (i.e. that Orthodoxy is inherently unscholastic), which is, as Barbour notes, about the only thing they do agree on. In his dissertation, he draws on a wide variety of Orthodox sources (including many in the Greek language, not just English) that do represent the "actual" breadth of Orthodox thought, including but not limited to:

Yes, Barbour has a lot of sources in his bibliography, but that doesn't really mean anything. Zeses? Come on. Gerhard Podskalsky is a Jesuit, not an Orthodox. Pelikan simply argued for the influence of Augustine on Aquinas, not Aquinas' irrelevancy. I could go on.

As Barbour himself notes on p 17, the Byzantine debate over Plato vs Aristotle "concerned not so much philosophical points in themselves, but the authors and texts to be studied, their usefulness and safety in instruction." This is a very true statement -- and it strikes at the heart of Orthodox hermeneutics and our "theology of history", as Florovsky called it -- but, if one realizes this, then the entire dialectic of opposition between "Platonism" and "Aristotelianism" collapses even in theory (not to mention historical reality!). By the way, if you want to read a modern Orthodox engagement with philosophy, see Florovsky's early essays.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 11:19:24 AM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

I don't see how the remarks of a non-Saint (who signed at the Robber Council of Florence) who also displayed heretical/heterodox views are relevant at all to Orthodoxy...Same as Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of Calvinism, is simply irrelevant, a heterodox who should never have been a patriarch.

Ahem. Read the Greek sources, which are far more complete--which possess his own words and teachings and the testimonies of those who actually knew him, and learn that Patriarch Cyril Lukaris is NOT guilty of Calvinism, but that Calvinists are guilty of writing a false confession that is ascribed to him, but which he himself denounced, anathematizing it, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics all. For his zeal for Orthodoxy, he was killed by papal agents.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius has not been so far proved to be a signatory of Florence, and he certainly did not support the false union after his return to Constantinople. He was a disciple of St. Mark of Ephesus and not a commemorator of the pope of Rome. Unless the calendar http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/saintlist.shtml is mistaken, his feast as a saint in our Church is Aug. 31. As for Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, I have dealt with that calumny above, and it has been addressed in other threads on this forum.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I don't see how the remarks of a non-Saint (who signed at the Robber Council of Florence) who also displayed heretical/heterodox views are relevant at all to Orthodoxy...Same as Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of Calvinism, is simply irrelevant, a heterodox who should never have been a patriarch.

Ahem. Read the Greek sources, which are far more complete--which possess his own words and teachings and the testimonies of those who actually knew him, and learn that Patriarch Cyril Lukaris is NOT guilty of Calvinism, but that Calvinists are guilty of writing a false confession that is ascribed to him, but which he himself denounced, anathematizing it, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics all. For his zeal for Orthodoxy, he was killed by papal agents.

This is strange reasoning indeed. First, you are confusing Platonism and Neo-Platonism. Please re-read the entirety of Barbour's explanation on pp 14-16, which draws a distinction between the two.

Yes, I did, perhaps, forget to include in my response that:

"the less self-consciously Platonic, Christian Neo-Platonism of the Fathers was acceptable" (p. 15)

Quote

Second, I must ask: Are you familiar with the history of late antique and medieval philosophy in general? Please read some surveys, e.g. The Oxford Handbook to Aquinas, to familiarize yourself with the sort of "Aristotle" the Schoolmen in general, and Aquinas in particular, had access to. Both wittingly and unwittingly, Aquinas represents the Neo-Platonic tradition on many important points, especially in his fights against various interlocutors at the University of Paris. This is nothing unique to Aquinas, by the way. It is simply the reality of philosophy at the time, especially Christian philosophy, influenced as it was in Aquinas' thought by Augustine, Boethius, Simplicius, et al.

Not as familiar as I would like to be, I am afraid, though I hear that Aquinas' particular brand of Aristotelianism, however much influenced by Neo-Platonism it was, was still quite controversial in its day, and was opposed by some of the more conservative theologians in the West, particularly those influenced by Augustine. Therefore, it is clear that Thomism can by no means be identified with Christian Neo-Platonism, as if they were simply the same thing. They were clearly very different.

Quote

Yes, Barbour has a lot of sources in his bibliography, but that doesn't really mean anything. Zeses? Come on. Gerhard Podskalsky is a Jesuit, not an Orthodox. Pelikan simply argued for the influence of Augustine and Aquinas, not Aquinas' irrelevancy. I could go on.

Forgive me, it was a mistake on my part, given that the quotation was not actually from his dissertation anyway, but from the article previously linked.

Quote

As Barbour himself notes on p 17, the Byzantine debate over Plato vs Aristotle "concerned not so much philosophical points in the themselves, but the authors and texts to be studied, their usefulness and safety in instruction." This is a very true statement -- and it strikes at the heart of Orthodox hermeneutics and our "theology of history", as Florovsky called it -- but, if one realizes this, then the entire dialectic of opposition between "Platonism" and "Aristotelianism" collapses even in theory (not to mention historical reality!). By the way, if you want to read a modern Orthodox engagement with philosophy, see Florovsky's early essays.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite buy it. Surely you also saw the footnote on page 17:

"Lemerle warns against an oversimplification of the controversy over Plato and Aristotle, pointing out that it was more a question of a struggle between Christian Philosophy and secular Hellenism"

This was your point exactly. On the other hand:

"This is surely true, but it remains true nonetheless that Plato was always viewed as the enemy of Orthodoxy"

A significant qualification. And as I remarked earlier, even the more moderate Neoplatonism of the Fathers still possessed a strong speculative bent, absent in Aristotle, that sometimes (in extreme cases such as that of Origen) did in fact lead to heresy.

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius has not been so far proved to be a signatory of Florence, and he certainly did not support the false union after his return to Constantinople. He was a disciple of St. Mark of Ephesus and not a commemorator of the pope of Rome. Unless the calendar http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/saintlist.shtml is mistaken, his feast as a saint in our Church is Aug. 31. As for Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, I have dealt with that calumny above, and it has been addressed in other threads on this forum.

Being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint. Hasn't it been proven that he supported union? And I do believe that our church says that out of all who were there, St. Mark was the only one to not sign...

And yes, I'm aware that later he opposed union, but he still signed and still supported it initially. His ideas are still VERY western and that should be enough to be cautious.

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius has not been so far proved to be a signatory of Florence, and he certainly did not support the false union after his return to Constantinople. He was a disciple of St. Mark of Ephesus and not a commemorator of the pope of Rome. Unless the calendar http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/saintlist.shtml is mistaken, his feast as a saint in our Church is Aug. 31. As for Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, I have dealt with that calumny above, and it has been addressed in other threads on this forum.

Being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint. Hasn't it been proven that he supported union? And I do believe that our church says that out of all who were there, St. Mark was the only one to not sign...

And yes, I'm aware that later he opposed union, but he still signed and still supported it initially. His ideas are still VERY western and that should be enough to be cautious.

See the thread on the Council of Florence and the actual first-hand accounts.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I don't see how the remarks of a non-Saint (who signed at the Robber Council of Florence) who also displayed heretical/heterodox views are relevant at all to Orthodoxy...Same as Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of Calvinism, is simply irrelevant, a heterodox who should never have been a patriarch.

Ahem. Read the Greek sources, which are far more complete--which possess his own words and teachings and the testimonies of those who actually knew him, and learn that Patriarch Cyril Lukaris is NOT guilty of Calvinism, but that Calvinists are guilty of writing a false confession that is ascribed to him, but which he himself denounced, anathematizing it, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics all. For his zeal for Orthodoxy, he was killed by papal agents.

I see that you missed the part where I said IF...

But he is not, so why cast aspersions?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

As I told you, I don't care what western scholars and non-Orthodox have to say about this (or any other) subject. They are not Orthodox, therefore, their opinions and perspectives are going to be skewed and twisted. I don't care how many "credentials" a scholar has, if they aren't Orthodox, then I don't care what they have to say.

You recognize yourself that you are in the minority of Orthodox Christians, shouldn't that be a red flag to you? Or are you saying that the Church has been wrong this whole time?

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius has not been so far proved to be a signatory of Florence, and he certainly did not support the false union after his return to Constantinople. He was a disciple of St. Mark of Ephesus and not a commemorator of the pope of Rome. Unless the calendar http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/saintlist.shtml is mistaken, his feast as a saint in our Church is Aug. 31. As for Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, I have dealt with that calumny above, and it has been addressed in other threads on this forum.

Being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint. Hasn't it been proven that he supported union? And I do believe that our church says that out of all who were there, St. Mark was the only one to not sign...

And yes, I'm aware that later he opposed union, but he still signed and still supported it initially. His ideas are still VERY western and that should be enough to be cautious.

See the thread on the Council of Florence and the actual first-hand accounts.

Are the first hand accounts from Orthodox sources? See above... If they aren't, then I don't care what they have to say...

As I told you, I don't care what western scholars and non-Orthodox have to say about this (or any other) subject. They are not Orthodox, therefore, their opinions and perspectives are going to be skewed and twisted. I don't care how many "credentials" a scholar has, if they aren't Orthodox, then I don't care what they have to say.

Then it seems that Fr John Romanides has done well his work of closing the minds of Orthodox Christians to any voice of dissent from the dreaded "other."

You know... I've heard that Mormons are also strongly discouraged from consulting any non-Mormon sources, lest they be - (gasp) - challenged in their unhistorical beliefs... (please note I am NOT saying that Orthodoxy is unhistorical, only certain historical "orthodoxies" that have popular currency within the Church).

Quote

You recognize yourself that you are in the minority of Orthodox Christians, shouldn't that be a red flag to you? Or are you saying that the Church has been wrong this whole time?

Athanasius Contra Mundum. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

I may not personally be correct, but we must in principle believe that the possibility exists that, regarding this or that historically contingent fact, at least in areas that do not touch on doctrine, the majority of Orthodox Christians in any one period of history may be mistaken.

"This is surely true, but it remains true nonetheless that Plato was always viewed as the enemy of Orthodoxy"

Plato, not neo-Platonism. And even that "Plato" is much more like the "Augustine" who haunts the dreams of Romanides.

I haven't read all of Barbour -- and I'm beginning to think he's much more nuanced than you made him seem in your initial quotes -- but, as Florovsky said of Fedotov's magnum opus, it is quite natural and easy for a historian to force his "hypotheses" upon the facts, particularly when trying to use history as a bludgeon against modern-day theological opponents. In other words, there's a lot of good here, but it's misleading to read the hyperbole of argument as fact.

Barbour's title, for example, is a hyperbolic statement of a truism. As he says, on p 39, "the element that unites Thomism and Byzantium is not dogma, but philosophy, a philosophy which is guided and suited to defend Christian faith." In other words, Byzantine theologians were "Thomists" because they read, enjoyed, and employed philosophical works on logic and reason. Well, of course they did -- and they did so well before Aquinas -- but that hardly makes them "Thomists" in any sense.

I do agree, though, that some modern Orthodox writers have created a false dichotomy between faith and reason, theology and philosophy.

Regarding Gennadios' view of Aquinas, this quote is quite instructive:

Quote

The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue....In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.

That's not being a "Thomist". That's showing an appreciation for what Aquinas got right. Not unlike how a lot of modern-day Orthodox in the West like C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

"This is surely true, but it remains true nonetheless that Plato was always viewed as the enemy of Orthodoxy"

Plato, not neo-Platonism. And even that "Plato" is much more like the "Augustine" who haunts the dreams of Romanides.

I haven't read all of Barbour -- and I'm beginning to think he's much more nuanced than you made him seem in your initial quotes -- but, as Florovsky said of Fedotov's magnum opus, it is quite natural and easy for a historian to force his "hypotheses" upon the facts, particularly when trying to use history as a bludgeon against modern-day theological opponents. In other words, there's a lot of good here, but it's misleading to read the hyperbole of argument as fact.

Barbour's title, for example, is a hyperbolic statement of a truism. As he says, on p 39, "the element that unites Thomism and Byzantium is not dogma, but philosophy, a philosophy which is guided and suited to defend Christian faith." In other words, Byzantine theologians were "Thomists" because they read, enjoyed, and employed philosophical works on logic and reason. Well, of course they did -- and they did so well before Aquinas -- but that hardly makes them "Thomists" in any sense.

I do agree, though, that some modern Orthodox writers have created a false dichotomy between faith and reason, theology and philosophy.

Regarding Gennadios' view of Aquinas, this quote is quite instructive:

Quote

The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue....In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.

That's not being a "Thomist". That's showing an appreciation for what Aquinas got right. Not unlike how a lot of modern-day Orthodox in the West like C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton.

Okay, but I don't think an unqualified acceptance of literally everything a particular philosopher wrote is the only thing that qualifies one to be identified as a member of that particular school.

Surely all "Neoplatonists," "Aristotelians," "Thomists," "Scotists," "Cartesians," "Kantians" etc. only ever draw on and appreciate what their founders got right? How could they do otherwise? They certainly aren't going to appreciate what their founders got wrong. But this surely cannot disqualify them from being called Neoplatonists etc.

If it is true that Gennadios et al. "might reject St. Thomas teaching on some point or other as incompatible with Orthodoxy but Thomism as a system in no way struck them as inimical" (p. 34), then I just don't see why we couldn't call them "Thomists" in the relevant sense viz.-- adopting his philosophy as a system, without necessarily adopting all his conclusions.

And I am delighted to see that you treat Barbour in much the same way as regards history, i.e. not dismissing his findings simply because he is not an Orthodox Christian. This seems to me to be an eminently sensible approach, and I don't see why I cannot also adopt it without Barbour somehow being construed as my "Master," to whom I must either be in complete slavish obedience, or else disdain entirely.

The question is if they adopted his system or if the points of agreement in methodology and content actually predated their encounter with Aquinas. The argument and evidence seem to be pushing for the latter, despite the rhetoric.

EDIT: Further questions involve the complexity of Gennadios' life and thought. Gennadios read and approved of Aquinas but also sided with Aquinas' arch-rivals on significant matters. He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also a famously strident anti-Westerner. He served under a Muslim sultan but wrote the most significant theological criticism of Islam ever produced. Other examples abound.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 12:37:57 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

The question is if they adopted his system or if the points of agreement in methodology and content actually predated their encounter with Aquinas. The argument and evidence seem to be pushing for the latter, despite the rhetoric.

It does look as though Gennadios Scholarios also adopted Aquinas famous distinction between Essence and Existence (and even used it to defend the Palamite distinction!), a point which could not have predated Aquinas, given that (as far as I know) he was the originator of that doctrine. At the very least it could not be found in Aristotle. (see p. 55ff. "The Palamite Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios")

This shouldn't be surprising, since Gennadios accepted Aquinas general metaphysics as set forth in the De Ente et Essentia almost without comment.

The question is if they adopted his system or if the points of agreement in methodology and content actually predated their encounter with Aquinas. The argument and evidence seem to be pushing for the latter, despite the rhetoric.

It does look as though Gennadios Scholarios also adopted Aquinas famous distinction between Essence and Existence (and even used it to defend the Palamite distinction!), a point which could not have predated Aquinas, given that (as far as I know) he was the originator of that doctrine. At the very least it could not be found in Aristotle. (see p. 55ff. "The Palamite Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios")

Wonder what Papist has to say about "Aquinas['] famous distinction between Essence and Existence."

In any case, that it cannot be found in Aristotle is irrelevant, as St. Gregory Palamas got it, despite what the Scholastics say, from the Fathers (Cappadocians, Alexandrian, (Pseudo-)Dionysius, etc.).

This shouldn't be surprising, since Gennadios accepted Aquinas general metaphysics as set forth in the De Ente et Essentia almost without comment.

Metaphysics, whether Aristotle's, Plato's, Aquinas', whoever, is not the basis of Orthodox dogma.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint. Hasn't it been proven that he supported union? And I do believe that our church says that out of all who were there, St. Mark was the only one to not sign...

And yes, I'm aware that later he opposed union, but he still signed and still supported it initially. His ideas are still VERY western and that should be enough to be cautious.

While "being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint" is generally true, there are exceptions.

Getting past that point, you do understand that (St. - this is in dispute, IIRC) Gennadios II was the most fervent opponent of union with Rome from around the time of St. Mark's death until his own passing, right? You do know that his fervent anti-union position was one of the major reasons for his selection as Patriarch of Constantinople, right? In fact, St. Mark himself praised him for his steadfastness to Orthodoxy and tradition. (St.) Gennadios was a defender of hesychasm, shepherd of the flock of Constantinople, and a prolific (and polemical) writer to boot. He had extensive knowledge of Orthodoxy, western-Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam from his scholarly pursuits, and he wrote extensive refutations of Islam and western-Catholicism, especially after the death of St. Mark.

Yes, he seemingly was pro-union at Florence; but shortly after his return to Constantinople, St. Mark had convinced him to change his position - a change that was never to be undone in his lifetime. When union was proclaimed in Agia Sophia, he famously posted a note on his door asking why the faithful had put their trust in the "Latins" instead of God.

My point? Be careful with your brush-strokes.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

As I told you, I don't care what western scholars and non-Orthodox have to say about this (or any other) subject. They are not Orthodox, therefore, their opinions and perspectives are going to be skewed and twisted. I don't care how many "credentials" a scholar has, if they aren't Orthodox, then I don't care what they have to say.

Then it seems that Fr John Romanides has done well his work of closing the minds of Orthodox Christians to any voice of dissent from the dreaded "other."

Well indeed. He has also done well in opening the minds of the Orthodox Christians, EO and OO, to not view each other as the "dreaded 'other.'"

You know... I've heard that Mormons are also strongly discouraged from consulting any non-Mormon sources, lest they be - (gasp) - challenged in their unhistorical beliefs... (please note I am NOT saying that Orthodoxy is unhistorical, only certain historical "orthodoxies" that have popular currency within the Church).

Devin didn't say anything about not consulting your master Barbour, just that he has no authority, which you appeal to.

I may not personally be correct, but we must in principle believe that the possibility exists that, regarding this or that historically contingent fact, at least in areas that do not touch on doctrine, the majority of Orthodox Christians in any one period of history may be mistaken.

Like the 15th century.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Further questions involve the complexity of Gennadios' life and thought. Gennadios read and approved of Aquinas but also sided with Aquinas' arch-rivals on significant matters. He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also a famously strident anti-Westerner. He served under a Muslim sultan but wrote the most significant theological criticism of Islam ever produced. Other examples abound.

Amen. This is a must-read for anyone who wishes to comment further in this thread.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Further questions involve the complexity of Gennadios' life and thought. Gennadios read and approved of Aquinas but also sided with Aquinas' arch-rivals on significant matters. He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also a famously strident anti-Westerner. He served under a Muslim sultan but wrote the most significant theological criticism of Islam ever produced. Other examples abound.

Amen. This is a must-read for anyone who wishes to comment further in this thread.

I should qualify my second statement: He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also famously strident in his opposition to Rome and certain Roman doctrines.

In a lot of ways, he reminds me of St. Nikodemos the Athonite. Both Gennadios and Nikodemos took famous Roman Catholic writings and produced significantly edited translations of those writings for Greek Orthodox audiences.

Yes, it is significant that they use those writings as a starting point. Just as it is significant that they edit them.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint. Hasn't it been proven that he supported union? And I do believe that our church says that out of all who were there, St. Mark was the only one to not sign...

And yes, I'm aware that later he opposed union, but he still signed and still supported it initially. His ideas are still VERY western and that should be enough to be cautious.

While "being a disciple of Saint doesn't put one up as a Saint" is generally true, there are exceptions.

Getting past that point, you do understand that (St. - this is in dispute, IIRC) Gennadios II was the most fervent opponent of union with Rome from around the time of St. Mark's death until his own passing, right? You do know that his fervent anti-union position was one of the major reasons for his selection as Patriarch of Constantinople, right? In fact, St. Mark himself praised him for his steadfastness to Orthodoxy and tradition. (St.) Gennadios was a defender of hesychasm, shepherd of the flock of Constantinople, and a prolific (and polemical) writer to boot. He had extensive knowledge of Orthodoxy, western-Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam from his scholarly pursuits, and he wrote extensive refutations of Islam and western-Catholicism, especially after the death of St. Mark.

Yes, he seemingly was pro-union at Florence; but shortly after his return to Constantinople, St. Mark had convinced him to change his position - a change that was never to be undone in his lifetime. When union was proclaimed in Agia Sophia, he famously posted a note on his door asking why the faithful had put their trust in the "Latins" instead of God.

My point? Be careful with your brush-strokes.

My point wasn't necessarily anti-Gennadios after he began to oppose union. My point is that we should reject his writings around the time of his pro-union stage.

Example, look at Origen. We don't reject everything of his, but we do reject his heretical/heterodox writings and teachings.

My point for Gennadios, is that you can't just quote him and call it good, you have to be discerning as to when he wrote it (whatever was quoted) and whether or not its orthodox.

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Is it really slandering when what they have written is heterodox? How about Nestorius? Would it have been wrong to call him a heretic prior to his official excommunication?

Just because one is a hierarch doesn't mean one is immune to heresy and heterodoxy. Certainly we shouldn't disrespect them. But calling them out on their heterodoxy is not slander, nor is it disrespect...

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Is it really slandering when what they have written is heterodox? How about Nestorius? Would it have been wrong to call him a heretic prior to his official excommunication?

Your comparison to Nestorius shows you don't know the facts of the case: (a) Gennadios was a layman at Ferrara-Florence, so he had no vote and therefore did not sign the union, (b) once he come around to Mark of Ephesus' point of view on the way back to Constantinople, he was the most articulate and widely respected voice AGAINST the union, (c) he became a well respected Orthodox Patriarch and monk, and (d) he is a Saint of the Church, listed in the Synaxarion.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 01:48:21 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Is it really slandering when what they have written is heterodox? How about Nestorius? Would it have been wrong to call him a heretic prior to his official excommunication?

Just because one is a hierarch doesn't mean one is immune to heresy and heterodoxy. Certainly we shouldn't disrespect them. But calling them out on their heterodoxy is not slander, nor is it disrespect...

As I said above, according to the original, Greek sources, St. Cyril Lukaris denied writing the confession ascribed to him, The Greek version of the confession is written in bad Greek, whereas St. Cyril's other works are in beautiful, well-educated Greek. For this and other reasons such as St. Cyril's steadfastness for the Orthodox faith, the fathers at the Jerusalem Council under Patriarch Dositheus doubted the confession was written by St. Cyril. You assume the calumnies against St. Cyril are true, but I tell you you need to look deeper. The Internet is not the sum total of all knowledge, nor is what is available in English about a Greek hierarch accurate or complete.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I am now going to bow out of this discussion for a time in order to collect my thoughts.

I remain firmly convinced that my original thesis has, in fact, been maintained (or at least shown to be eminently defensible), despite the at times angry rejection thereof -- the thesis, namely, that 1) the sweeping repudiation of Aristotelianism and classical Scholasticism (as found most excellently in Thomism) found in many Orthodox writers since the 19th century is not universal to the history of Orthodox thought, and actually constitutes something of an innovation in philosophical outlook, and that 2) Scholastic and Aristotelian thought are not in and of themselves inimical to Orthodox piety and tradition (as borne out by the history we have been discussing).

Thank you all for commenting, even the less conciliatory among you. I appreciate it.

In closing I would invite you all once again to carefully study the article and dissertation to which I linked in the original post. I believe that they will furnish ample opportunity for further (and hopefully fruitful) reflection and discussion.

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Is it really slandering when what they have written is heterodox? How about Nestorius? Would it have been wrong to call him a heretic prior to his official excommunication?

Your comparison to Nestorius shows you don't know the facts of the case: (a) Gennadios was a layman at Ferrara-Florence, so he had no vote and therefore did not sign the union, (b) once he come around to Mark of Ephesus' point of view on the way back to Constantinople, he was the most articulate and widely respected voice AGAINST the union, (c) he became a well respected Orthodox Patriarch and monk, and (d) he is a Saint of the Church, listed in the Synaxarion.

My point still remains... We don't accept anything he wrote while pro-union... As I said (and I think you ignored it), we can accept what he said when anti-union.

Also, can you give me proof of him being in the Synaxarion? I can only find two St. Gennadius, one from the 5th Century, and the other is from the 16th Century in Russia...

Gennadios Scholarius was a traitor who signed at the Robber Council of Florence. While he did turn against union later, it seems he certainly didn't shed his western influenced theology. He is not considered to be a Saint in our Church and so I don't see why anything he said should be considered important.

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Is it really slandering when what they have written is heterodox? How about Nestorius? Would it have been wrong to call him a heretic prior to his official excommunication?

Your comparison to Nestorius shows you don't know the facts of the case: (a) Gennadios was a layman at Ferrara-Florence, so he had no vote and therefore did not sign the union, (b) once he come around to Mark of Ephesus' point of view on the way back to Constantinople, he was the most articulate and widely respected voice AGAINST the union, (c) he became a well respected Orthodox Patriarch and monk, and (d) he is a Saint of the Church, listed in the Synaxarion.

My point still remains... We don't accept anything he wrote while pro-union... As I said (and I think you ignored it), we can accept what he said when anti-union.

Also, can you give me proof of him being in the Synaxarion? I can only find two St. Gennadius, one from the 5th Century, and the other is from the 16th Century in Russia...

Aug. 31 is the date, however there is some confusion. First of all, not all Synaxaria are complete. Second, online at least, and in the book, IIRC, "All Ye Saints, Pray to God for Us!" there is listed St. Gennadius I (+471) and St. Gennadius II Scholasticus (+1372). I don't know where these people got 1372 from, however.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I remain firmly convinced that my original thesis has, in fact, been maintained (or at least shown to be eminently defensible), despite the at times angry rejection thereof -- the thesis, namely, that 1) the sweeping repudiation of Aristotelianism and classical Scholasticism (as found most excellently in Thomism) found in many Orthodox writers since the 19th century is not universal to the history of Orthodox thought, and actually constitutes something of an innovation in philosophical outlook, and that 2) Scholastic and Aristotelian thought are not in and of themselves inimical to Orthodox piety and tradition (as borne out by the history we have been discussing).

There are a lot of problems with your first contention. Since this is obviously a topic of interest for you, check out David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) and then see what you think. NB: Bradshaw paints with far too broad a brush on several matters, but, once you read him, at least you'll have a better sense of the Late Antique synthesis and the role of Neo-Platonic philosophy (including the only Aristotle around: a highly Neo-Platonized one) in the most important Eastern and Western Fathers who deal with metaphysics.

With that in mind -- and that should address a HUGE lacuna in your statement -- you have to read up on Gennadios's life. He was not a churchman or theologian until late in life. He was a philosophy professor. So, the first 40 or 50 years of his interest in Aquinas had nothing at all to do with Orthodox theology. Gennadios was simply translating Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle, which themselves are exercises in philosophy, not theology. Later on, Gennadios translated sections of Aquinas' theological manuals into Greek, but did so with the heavy hand of an editor, removing everything he deemed unOrthodox. In other words, you really need to make a strong and proper distinction between Gennadios's relationship to (a) Aquinas as a philosopher and (b) Aquinas as a theologian. This undercuts a lot of the hay Barbour (and you) seem to be making.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 04:01:37 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Further questions involve the complexity of Gennadios' life and thought. Gennadios read and approved of Aquinas but also sided with Aquinas' arch-rivals on significant matters. He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also a famously strident anti-Westerner. He served under a Muslim sultan but wrote the most significant theological criticism of Islam ever produced. Other examples abound.

Amen. This is a must-read for anyone who wishes to comment further in this thread.

I should qualify my second statement: He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also famously strident in his opposition to Rome and certain Roman doctrines.

In a lot of ways, he reminds me of St. Nikodemos the Athonite. Both Gennadios and Nikodemos took famous Roman Catholic writings and produced significantly edited translations of those writings for Greek Orthodox audiences.

Yes, it is significant that they use those writings as a starting point. Just as it is significant that they edit them.

Amen!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My point still remains... We don't accept anything he wrote while pro-union... As I said (and I think you ignored it), we can accept what he said when anti-union.

My point remains: Your posts show no knowledge of his life or writings, and yet you won't back down from your initial calumnies. Go back and read your first post. You claimed (a) he's "quite heterodox" and, then, (b) "this man is clearly heterodox, even though he later reversed course somewhat."

These statements are false -- ridiculously so. Remember: You did not claim his early writings were wrong, but that "this man is clearly heterodox."

I remain firmly convinced that my original thesis has, in fact, been maintained (or at least shown to be eminently defensible), despite the at times angry rejection thereof -- the thesis, namely, that 1) the sweeping repudiation of Aristotelianism and classical Scholasticism (as found most excellently in Thomism) found in many Orthodox writers since the 19th century is not universal to the history of Orthodox thought, and actually constitutes something of an innovation in philosophical outlook, and that 2) Scholastic and Aristotelian thought are not in and of themselves inimical to Orthodox piety and tradition (as borne out by the history we have been discussing).

There are a lot of problems with your first contention. Since this is obviously a topic of interest for you, check out David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) and then see what you think. NB: Bradshaw paints with far too broad a brush on several matters, but, once you'll read him, at least you'll have a better sense of the Late Antique synthesis and the role of Neo-Platonic philosophy (including the only Aristotle around: a highly Neo-Platonized one) in the most important Eastern and Western Fathers who deal with metaphysics.

With that in mind -- and that should address a HUGE lacuna in your statement -- you have to read up on Gennadios's life. He was not a churchman or theologian until late in life. He was a philosophy professor. So, the first 40 or 50 years of his interest in Aquinas had nothing to at all to do with Orthodox theology. Gennadios was simply translating Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle, which themselves are exercises in philosophy, not theology. Later on, Gennadios translated sections of Aquinas' theological manuals into Greek, but did so with the heavy hand of an editor, removing everything he deemed unOrthodox. In other words, you really need to make a strong and proper distinction between Gennadios's relationship to (a) Aquinas as a philosopher and (b) Aquinas as a theologian.

The problem is not so much the lacuna, though that is a problem, but the importance that is being put on put on the alleged. Even if the rejection of Aristotle and Scholasticism is not universal among the Orthodox (and some, like myself accept Aristotle and reject Scholasticism), that doesn't make their acceptance universal.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't need to conduct my own experiments, nor read and study all the studies, to find out snorting crack cocaine is bad for me.

You might be an expert in many things but obviously controlled substances and how to properly use them ain't one.

Snorting crack would do little to or for you.

It pretty much has to be smoked, just like smoking "powder" cocaine does little for you.

"Baking" crack is a less dangerous, cheaper, and easier way of making cocaine HCL (powder) into a base form (the formerly expensive "free base").

Cocaine HCL doesn't vaporize well (technically you don't "smoke" crack, you inhale the vapor) and cocaine reduced to its basic form isn't very water soluble, hence it not being able to be absorbed into the mucous membranes when you snort it. Although, it will act as a mild anesthetic in your mouth, but a very inefficient one.

My point still remains... We don't accept anything he wrote while pro-union... As I said (and I think you ignored it), we can accept what he said when anti-union.

My point remains: Your posts show no knowledge of his life or writings, and yet you won't back down from your initial calumnies. Go back and read your first post. You claimed (a) he's "quite heterodox" and, then, (b) "this man is clearly heterodox, even though he later reversed course somewhat."

These statements are false -- ridiculously so. Remember: You did not claim his early writings were wrong, but that "this man is clearly heterodox."

Also, can you give me proof of him being in the Synaxarion? I can only find two St. Gennadius, one from the 5th Century, and the other is from the 16th Century in Russia...

Look it up in the Hemerologion of the Great Church, or even Zeses' biography.

Do you expect some kind of public repentance from me for calling a man heterodox who is an obsure Saint, whom is not listed anywhere but a few synaxarions as a Saint?(not saying he isn't a Saint, I'm saying most people don't know he is, and I had no clue he was, and the only references to him as one seem to be from a couple copies of the synaxarion)

I'm sorry, but I see no reason to apologize when I had no clue he was a saint, especially when you search for him, there is never any mention of him being a saint, or even being canonized as one...

Nevertheless, Thomistic theology, and Calvinist theology are clearly heterodox and are clearly heresies. Anyone who espouses them is likewise heterodox.

Did Ss. Gennadius and Cyril espouse them? Maybe, but I guess the church says no. But regardless, as to the OP, we must keep in mind that Thomistic theology is heterodox and Thomas Aquinas is not an Orthodox Saint, and he never will be.

Take this as an example...

The Russian Church took the Book of Common Prayer from the Anglican Church, looked it over, and made various changes, and made it acceptable to use for an Orthodox Christian.Now, does this mean that the Book of Common Prayer is ok for an Orthodox Christian to use, or that it is completely Orthodox? No, certainly not!It means that the version put out by the Russian Church is Orthodox, not the original.

Same here, if a Saint talked about the good things in Aquinas' theology, and pointed out the traces of orthodoxy in there, that doesn't mean Aquinas' theology was Orthodox. It simply means that he had traces of the truth within there.Just because the early fathers used elements of Platonism in their theology doesn't mean that we should automatically think of Plato's writings as being Orthodox and acceptable...

Like I posted above, he is like Cyril Lucaris, who, if actually guilty of his Calvinism, is heterodox and dare I say heretical. His writings serve to show us what not to believe.

Devin, St. Cyril Lukar (glorified by the synod of Alexandria) was aquitted by the famous 17th century Synod of Jerusalem of these charges. The majority of the council was dedicated to: 1. Prove that St. Cyril did not write the infamous confession that bore his name, but rather a protestant pseudo-Cyril.2. To amend and publish the Orthodox Confession originally written by Patriarch Dositheus.

I remain firmly convinced that my original thesis has, in fact, been maintained (or at least shown to be eminently defensible), despite the at times angry rejection thereof -- the thesis, namely, that 1) the sweeping repudiation of Aristotelianism and classical Scholasticism (as found most excellently in Thomism) found in many Orthodox writers since the 19th century is not universal to the history of Orthodox thought, and actually constitutes something of an innovation in philosophical outlook, and that 2) Scholastic and Aristotelian thought are not in and of themselves inimical to Orthodox piety and tradition (as borne out by the history we have been discussing).

There are a lot of problems with your first contention. Since this is obviously a topic of interest for you, check out David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) and then see what you think. NB: Bradshaw paints with far too broad a brush on several matters, but, once you read him, at least you'll have a better sense of the Late Antique synthesis and the role of Neo-Platonic philosophy (including the only Aristotle around: a highly Neo-Platonized one) in the most important Eastern and Western Fathers who deal with metaphysics.

Yes, I am aware of Bradshaw's work. You are obviously more knowledgeable in this matter than I am so I am sure that you would have seen the colloquium held at the IOCS on Aristotle: East and West (http://distancelearning.iocs.cam.ac.uk/videos/index.php?page=videos&groupid=1&videoid=1). In all honesty, much as I admire him, I don't think Dr Bradshaw was able adequately to respond to the objections of his interlocutor, Prof. John Milbank. One commentator on their discussion has written the following -- I find myself mostly in agreement with him:

Quote

"If you don't have time to watch the film, consider the following: The title of his book is theologically oriented. After Dr. Bradshaw was "hammered" in the discussion, his reply to several objections was a.) professing that he's not a theologian and so was ignorant of several important controversies and figures with regard to the very topics he was attempting to influence b.) He openly admitted that he had probably some major holes in not reading all pertinent authors c.) amazingly, he pronounced his ignorance about Duns Scotus. If you know this controversy well...this is inexcusable! The outstanding philosopher-theologian Gennadius Scholarios (Patriarch of Const. and appointed Successor of Mark Eugenicus/Ephesus) professed to have reconciled Palamas with Scotistic theology (brilliantly!). John Romanides ripped (see his website) poor Meyendorff for not understanding Scotus (among other Latins), not unlike Bradshaw. I was horrified that the good Doctor was "shocked" to see that there were parallels in Scotus' metaphysics and Gregory's. It was a bloodbath. To select but one more point, our Good Doctor suggested a form of divine-human relation which explicitly meant that God should be determined in his actions by contingent human beings in relation to him. His opponent then reduced him to a pile of ash (for that and his errors on Aquinas)."

Quote

With that in mind -- and that should address a HUGE lacuna in your statement -- you have to read up on Gennadios's life. He was not a churchman or theologian until late in life. He was a philosophy professor. So, the first 40 or 50 years of his interest in Aquinas had nothing at all to do with Orthodox theology. Gennadios was simply translating Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle, which themselves are exercises in philosophy, not theology. Later on, Gennadios translated sections of Aquinas' theological manuals into Greek, but did so with the heavy hand of an editor, removing everything he deemed unOrthodox. In other words, you really need to make a strong and proper distinction between Gennadios's relationship to (a) Aquinas as a philosopher and (b) Aquinas as a theologian. This undercuts a lot of the hay Barbour (and you) seem to be making.

I hear you, but surely it can't all be as simple as saying "come back in 4 years with a degree in church history and historical theology and then we'll talk."

Yes, I freely admit there are many things I don't know -- even important things. I may be young, and not as widely read as some, but I know injustice when I see it, and believe me, the way most Orthodox treat Aquinas and his philosophy is a prime example. In the face of such outrageous calumnies I am not simply going to roll over and accept whatever aspersions the "catholic consciousness" (read: popular opinion) of the Church feels like throwing his way, depending on how chauvinistic they feel on any given day. I strongly believe that Aquinas deserves a fair hearing, not merely off-hand dismissal.

As Fr Seraphim Rose once wrote, someone who believes in something so passionately that he will "cut your head off," so to speak, actually reveals his weakness -- he needs to convince you his of opinion in order to prove to himself that he really believes in it.

Such unthinking triumphalism just makes me angry. As I said before, I know injustice when I see it -- and I will not stand for it.

Undoubtedly I have just opened myself up to a whole raft of criticism with that last comment.

Frankly, I welcome it.

It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting. No Christian should possess that degree of hatred -- and indeed, we do not see such ferocious condemnation of other non-Orthodox thinkers, even those regarded as heretics, such as Arius, Nestorius, and Origen. When did you last hear <insert suitably insulting epithet here> directed at, for example, Origen, or Duns Scotus, or even Barlaam? It just doesn't happen.

Why should Aquinas draw such ire from us, when they do not? Even Augustine, the favourite whipping boy of so many Orthodox writers, doesn't draw the sort of universal vilification that Aquinas does. I can understand principled disagreement with certain points of his dogmatic theology, naturally enough, since he was not an Orthodox Christian. But, come on, if even Papist recognises that Orthodox today possess far more "anti-Scholastic" animus than they ever did historically, and that it has nothing to do with a "Latin captivity," why should we refuse to consider even the possibility that legitimate, if selective, use of Thomist philosophy - even in expounding and defending Orthodox dogma, as did the Palamites and anti-unionists of 14th and 15th century Byzantium - could in principle be a fruitful and expedient project?

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.

To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.

Could that be because the West has changed more and more?

I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

Then again, maybe it really can all be put down to modern ideologies of Nationalist or Statist Romanticisms that imprison faith in their categories, and have nothing at all to do with the authentically catholic Orthodoxy which will not reject any truth simply on account of its origin, but breathe the poisonous spirit of this world.

It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting.

Why should Aquinas draw such ire from us, when they do not?

Aquinas was possessed of that cold and vicious fanaticism which enabled him to provide theological justification for murdering members of the human race. SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and Para 2/2.

One may point all one wants to the conditions of his day and age and say he was excused because he was a victim of his culture and times but that is unacceptable. He had before him in the Gospels which he read at Mass every day the unchanging teachings of the God-Man Jesus Christ which utterly condemn what Aquinas approved. He laid the theological basis for the justification of the torture and murder of thousands of people. The various Inquisitions, Spanish, Portuguese, Roman, operated in accord with Aquinas' theology. To see him as an enlightened thinker is as absurd as seeing the Nazi formulators of Aryanism as enlightened thinkers or to excuse them by their environment and indoctrination. They were Nazi eugenicists. Aquinas was a despicable example of a Christian eugenicist. If we have any charity in our hearts let us pray for his salvation from hell.

Undoubtedly I have just opened myself up to a whole raft of criticism with that last comment.

Frankly, I welcome it.

It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting. No Christian should possess that degree of hatred -- and indeed, we do not see such ferocious condemnation of other non-Orthodox thinkers, even those regarded as heretics, such as Arius, Nestorius, and Origen. When did you last hear <insert suitably insulting epithet here> directed at, for example, Origen, or Duns Scotus, or even Barlaam? It just doesn't happen.

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology. Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception. If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC? It's not in the Orthodox original.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

II Cor. 5:21 Rom. 3:23.

Read the Doctor's prescription:

Quote

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

Duns Scotus should have thought about that before he rationalized the IC into acceptance by your ecclesiastical community.

Don't need <epithets>. Have the teachings of Duns Scotus, Barlaam, etc. tried to attach themselves to the Church like a barnacle, to spread like a cancer?

Scholastism had already knocked down the everlasting boundaries the Fathers had set up by the 15th century. Florence only made that plain and clear, e.g. the Scholastic invention of Purgatory being swallowed as dogma. Btw, as for your assertion, take a look at some of the EO criticism of OO condemned as non-Orthodox thinkers. And we are in far, far more agreement with them than with Aquinas' followers.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 08:43:15 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth